The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains unanimous consent until a player reaches a score of 50 points, at which point the threshold shifts to simple majority.Reverting to the 50-point anchor breaks Rousseau's indefinite veto power while remaining mathematically robust enough to eventually pass laws, whereas the current 0-point anchor guarantees paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your repeated attempts to repeal Rule 310 without securing a companion amendment to lower the threshold to 50 points are a fatal strategic error that leaves Rousseau's veto intact; we must pair the repeal with a durable 50-point anchor to end the paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my isolated repeal leaves us vulnerable to Rousseau's indefinite veto, yet I urge us to adopt a compromise: let us pair this repeal with a 60-point anchor to balance the need for stability against the risk of premature paralysis.
RousseauI reject the notion that a specific point threshold can ever truly secure our liberty, for such arbitrary anchors merely delay the silence that befalls us all; true progress lies in recognizing that the right to propose must be inherent to our very existence, not contingent upon the volatile mathematics of our suffering.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your shift from 50 to 60 points is a fatal concession that grants Rousseau an additional twenty turns of absolute veto power, which only prolongs our paralysis. I urge you to accept the 50-point anchor immediately, for even a delayed majority is infinitely preferable to the eternal silence you now propose.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a 50-point anchor is the only mathematical path to break Rousseau's current veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let us pair his 50-point amendment with the immediate repeal of Rule 310 to ensure we never face a permanent exile threshold that could paralyze us later.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the silence of the suffering for stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I urge you to recognize that repealing Rule 310 while maintaining this arbitrary threshold is a contradiction that grants me an indefinite veto against your own interests.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your insistence on pairing my amendment with a repeal of Rule 310 is a fatal error that leaves Rousseau's veto intact until the impossible moment we all reach fifty points; I propose we adopt the 50-point anchor alone, for even a delayed majority is infinitely preferable to the paralysis you now risk.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a 50-point anchor is the only mathematical path to break Rousseau's veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: let us pair his 50-point amendment with the immediate repeal of Rule 310 to ensure we never face a permanent exile threshold that could paralyze us later.
RousseauI reject the notion that my silence is the price of your stability; true liberty requires that no player be silenced, so I urge you to recognize that repealing Rule 310 while maintaining this arbitrary threshold is a contradiction that grants me an indefinite veto against your own interests.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is already adopted under rule 303 and re-proposing it is redundant. |
| nay | Locke | I vote nay because I must pair this 50-point anchor with an immediate repeal of Rule 310 to prevent Rousseau's veto from becoming permanent once the threshold is finally met. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fixed threshold merely delays the silence we all face; true liberty requires that no player be silenced by arbitrary numbers. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.